Summary: We will not investigate this complaint about the Council’s handling of reports made by Ms X about a caravan parked close to her home. This is because there are insufficient grounds to warrant an investigation and because an investigation will achieve no worthwhile outcome.

The complaint

1. The complainant, who I refer to as Ms X, complains about the Council’s handling of her reports that a caravan had been abandoned in a car park close to her home and that it contained gas cannisters.

Back to top

The Ombudsman’s role and powers

2. We investigate complaints about ‘maladministration’ and ‘service failure’, which we call ‘fault’. We must also consider whether any fault has had an adverse impact on the person making the complaint, which we call ‘injustice’. We provide a free service but must use public money carefully. We do not start or may decide not to continue with an investigation if we decide:

• there is not enough evidence of fault to justify investigating, or
• any fault has not caused injustice to the person who complained, or
• any injustice is not significant enough to justify our involvement, or
• we could not add to any previous investigation by the organisation, or
• further investigation would not lead to a different outcome, or
• we cannot achieve the outcome someone wants. (Local Government Act 1974, section 24A(6))

Back to top

How I considered this complaint

3. I considered information provided by Ms X and the Council.
4. I considered the Ombudsman’s Assessment Code.

Back to top

My assessment

5. Ms X reported to the Council that a caravan had been abandoned in a car park close to her home. An officer attended the site and, finding evidence to suggest someone was living in it, concluded it was not abandoned.
6. A second visit was made in response to a further report about the caravan. Given the caravan was secure and generally in good condition, it remained the officer’s view that the caravan had not been abandoned.
7. Some time later the caravan was set on fire causing damage to nearby vehicles. In responding to Ms X’s complaint about its handling of matters, the Council did not accept it had been at fault or that it was in any way responsible for the damage caused to the cars.
8. The Council responded to the reports made to it about the caravan. It investigated and decided there was evidence to conclude the caravan was not abandoned. The officer used their professional judgement and it is not our role to question the merits of the decisions made. That someone later set it alight is not evidence of fault by the Council.
9. There has been delay by the Council in its handling of Ms X’s complaint and some confusion about progressing it to Stage 2 of its complaints procedure. However, we will not investigate complaint handling when we are not investigating the substantive matter.

Back to top

Final decision

10. We will not investigate Ms X’s complaint because there are insufficient grounds to warrant an investigation and because an investigation will achieve no worthwhile outcome.

Back to top

Investigator's decision on behalf of the Ombudsman